http://www.toronto.ca/index.htm

Study being undertaken by the City of Toronto and Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA).

Purpose:

• to develop a long-term management plan (i.e. Master Plan) for Wilket Creek that takes account of natural processes, aquatic and wildlife habitat, and public amenities

Key objectives: (a) protect infrastructure at risk due to erosion impacts during large storm events

• exposed manholes

• exposed sewers

• pedestrian bridges

(b) protect well-wooded valleyland and trail system

• Significant storm events of 2000, 2005, and 2008 have caused major damage to the channel and local infrastructure including bridges, pathways, manholes, and sanitary sewers

• Interim repair efforts have been successfully implemented at three sites in Wilket Creek Park

• Ongoing erosion impacts and infrastructure damage confirms the need for the development of a longer term management plan that takes into account natural channel processes

Why are we developing a Master Plan for Wilket Creek?

The Master Plan will:

• Recommend projects to stabilize sections of Wilket Creek and protect infrastructure from future erosion impacts

• Incorporate habitat considerations to improve riparian and wildlife habitat within the channel

• Prioritize projects (e.g. short-term, medium term, long-term)

• Identify mitigation measures to reduce impacts of recommended projects to the greatest extent possible

What will be the outcome?

INSERT LARGER OVERVIEW MAP OF AREA including labels for York Mills Road, Windfields Park, Country Lane, Post Road, Wilket Creek Park, Sunnybrook Park

REACH MAP

This study is following the Master Planning provisions of a Municipal Class Environmental Assessment

When making the choice of what to do, we can:

1. Do Nothing – monitor the situation

2. Use Land-use Planning Tools – land-use designations / zoning, protect the feature

3. Design – detailed analysis for planning and design

4. Manage the existing situation – best management practices, habitat restoration

Assess

Identify the Problem

Explore

Explore the Problem

Confirm

Alternatives and Implications

Choose

Making the Choice

This study is following a process founded in the principles of Adaptive Environmental Management (AEM), as outlined in the document “The Adaptive Management of Stream Corridors in Ontario (2001)”

This process has Four Phases:

1. Do Nothing

• No human intervention

• Creek conditions monitored and allowed to function in current erosive state

2. Local Improvements

• Infrastructure repairs

• Stream bank and slope stabilization

• Stream bed stabilization and grade control

• Minor planform adjustments/ realignments

Bed Stabilization Options

Bank Stabilization Options

Bioengineering Methods

Engineered Methods

3. Complete Channel Realignment

• Re-establish natural meandering pattern with pools and riffles

• Construct new channel within constraints of available property

• Planform, profile, and cross-sectional shape developed in balance with existing sediment and flow regime to reduce erosive forces and promote a self-maintaining system

• Restore bank stability, grade controls, and natural vegetation within new creek corridor

Before Realignment

After Realignment

Evaluation Criteria 1. Natural Environment

a)Channel Form and Function – will this alternative provide erosion protection while allowing natural channel function?

b)Slope Stability – does this alternative address current and potential future valley slope stability issues?

c)Natural Environment – what will be the impacts on aquatic and terrestrial habitats?

2.Social / Cultural Environment

a)Private Property – how will this alternative impact lands under private ownership?

b)Public Perception – will this alternative have perceived impacts on public interests (e.g. safety, recreation, privacy)?

c)Cultural Heritage – will this alternative have impacts on known or unknown cultural resources?

3. Technical / Economic Factors

a)Risk Assessment – what is the degree of risk that failure / damage will occur, and when could it be anticipated?

b)Access / Constructability – are there limits or constraints to construction of this alternative (e.g. slopes, property ownership, significant environmental features)? Is the site accessible for the required construction machinery / techniques to build the alternative and maintain it in the future?

c)Immediate (Capital) Costs – what will be the capital costs to carry out this alternative?

d)Long-term Maintenance – how long will the alternative last? Will additional work need to be completed again, and when? How much will it cost?

Stream analyses must consider the reach scale (large) to the habitat / aquatic organism scale (fine)

REACH SCALE

HABITAT / ORGANISM SCALE

Advantages Disadvantages

Alternative 1: Do Nothing

No immediate cost impacts No site disturbance No interruption of park use due to

construction

Continued bank erosion and bed incision Continued impacts on sewer infrastructure;

risk of damage is high No improvement in aquatic habitat Continued safety concerns for trail and

bridge users

Alternative 2: Local

Improvements

Addresses immediate risks to sewer infrastructure

Some improvement to aquatic habitat Some improvement to geomorphic form Some decrease in erosion impacts

Moderate construction costs Moderate site disturbance Requires some vegetation removal and

replanting (wider channel)

Alternative 3: Complete

Realignment

Removal of impacts/ risk on sewer infrastructure and park amenities

Establishment of stable planform, profile and cross section

Improves sediment transport Reduces erosive forces promoting a self-

maintaining system Lowest long-term maintenance costs

Large construction costs Large site disturbance Disruption to park use during construction Requires most vegetation removal and

replanting (new planform and wider channel)

IMPROVE FIGURE AND NEED TO CORRECT SITE NUMBERING TO MATCH TRCA

Advantages Disadvantages

Alternative 1: Do Nothing

No immediate cost impacts No site disturbance No disturbance to private property

owners

Impacts and high risk to sewer infrastructure remains

Continued bank erosion and bed incision Valley wall contact/ slope stability issues

remain No improvement in aquatic habitat

Alternative 2: Local

Improvements

Addresses impacts and immediate risks to sewer infrastructure

Some improvement in geomorphic form Some improvement to aquatic habitat Some decrease in erosion impacts

Moderate construction activity and costs Moderate site disturbance Requires some vegetation removal and

replanting Disturbance to private property owners

Alternative 3: Complete

Realignment

Addresses impacts and removes risks to sewer infrastructure

Establishment of stable planform , profile, and cross section

Decreases erosion impacts Improves aquatic habitat Lowest long-term maintenance costs

Extensive construction activity and costs Difficult site access High site disturbance Disturbance to private property owners Requires substantial vegetation removal and

replanting

WC-R6

IMPROVE figure SHOWing WHERE SPOT TREATMENTS CAN HAPPEN

Advantages Disadvantages

Alternative 1: Do Nothing

No immediate cost impacts No site disturbance No disruption to private property owners

Continued bank erosion and bed incision risk to private property

Risk to private pedestrian bridges remains Aesthetics low at highly eroded locations No improvement in aquatic habitat

Alternative 2: Local

Improvements

Stabilizes banks and protects private property

Some improvement to geomorphic form Some decrease in erosion impacts Some improvement to aquatic habitat

Moderate construction costs Moderate site disturbance Requires some vegetation removal and

replanting Disruption to private property owners Risk to private pedestrian bridges remains

Alternative 3: Complete

Realignment

Ensures minimal risks to sewer infrastructure remains

Establishment of stable planform and cross section

Decreases erosion impacts Risk to private pedestrian bridges

addressed Improvement to aquatic habitat Lowest long-term maintenance costs

High construction costs High site disturbance (including private

pedestrian bridges) High disruption to private property owners Requires most vegetation removal and

replanting

12

Advantages Disadvantages

Alternative 1: Do Nothing

No immediate cost impacts No site disturbance No interruption of trail use due to

construction

Continued bank erosion and highly active planform adjustments

Continued risk to sewer infrastructure due to migration

No improvement in aquatic habitat Continued safety concerns for trail users High long-term maintenance costs

Alternative 2: Local

Improvements

Addresses existing risk to sanitary sewer infrastructure

Some improvement to aquatic habitat Some decrease in erosion impacts Reduction in debris jams Vegetation removal minimized Best alternative for preservation of mature

forest

Moderate immediate cost impact Moderate long-term maintenance costs Moderate site disturbance Disturbance to park use during

construction Requires some vegetation (old growth)

removal and replanting

Alternative 3: Complete

Realignment

Addresses existing risk to sanitary sewer infrastructure

Lowers long-term risk to sewer infrastructure

Establishment of stable planform, profile, and cross section decreases erosion impacts

Some improvement to aquatic habitat and riparian vegetation

Minimize debris jams Lowest long-term maintenance costs

High immediate cost impact High site disturbance Disturbance to park use during

construction Requires some vegetation (old growth)

removal and replanting

WC-R8

v

SHOW WHERE SPOT TREATMENTS/MINOR REALIGNMENTS/BANK SHAVING/regrading CAN HAPPEN

Advantages Disadvantages

Alternative 1: Do Nothing

No immediate cost impacts No site disturbance No interruption of park use due to

construction

Continued bank erosion Degraded infrastructure (e.g. gabions and

stormwater outlets) provides low aesthetic value

No improvement in aquatic habitat – barrier to aquatic organisms remains (weir)

Continued safety concerns for trail users

Alternative 2: Local

Improvements

Addresses localized bank erosion issues Some improvement to geomorphic form Some improvement to aquatic habitat

and terrestrial systems Improves aesthetics

Moderate construction costs Low to Moderate site disturbance Minor disruption of park use

Alternative 3: Complete

Realignment

Establishment of stable planform, profile, and cross section ensures long-term stability of infrastructure (sewer, pathway, bridges)

Decreases erosion impacts Improves aquatic habitat and terrestrial

systems Lowest long-term maintenance costs Improve aesthetics

Large construction costs Large site disturbance Potential disturbance to private property

owners Major disruption to park use Requires some vegetation removal and

replanting

Wilket Creek Park

Complete Realignment - Establish stable, meandering planform with pool-riffle sequence within property

constraints to promote a self-maintaining system - Placement of riffle features at address high-risk locations such as sanitary sewer

crossings - Establish optimal configuration of path network and bridge placement to ensure

safety of recreational amenities

WC-R5

Local Improvements (including minor planform realignments) - Address immediate high-risk locations and provide some improvement in

geomorphic form - Bank/slope stabilization at downstream end - Riffle-type feature over downstream exposed sewer crossing - Minor channel realignment and riffle feature at exposed sewer crossing mid-

reach - Bank/slope stabilization of eroding backyard at upstream end and minor

realignment away from sanitary sewer

WC-R7

Local Improvements (including minor planform realignments) - Minor planform adjustments/ realignments (e.g. complete developing cut-offs) to

promote creek migration in the ‘safest’ direction and minimize disturbance to forest

- Bank stabilization and/or re-grading to improve geomorphic form - Monitor and adaptive management

WC-R6 WC-R8 WC-R9

Local Improvements - No existing locations at high-risk localized restoration and improvements as

required (e.g. bank stabilization, degraded infrastructure repair/removal, barrier removal, plantings, etc.)

After tonight’s workshop,

• Compile and review input received from public consultation into the study report

• Establish a risk-based implementation plan

– identify when alternatives should be implemented, e.g. immediately, 0-5 years, 5-10 years…

• Issue Notice of Completion for the Master Plan; 30-day public and agency comment period

Upon Completion of Environmental Assessment Process (pending regulatory and budgetary approvals)

• Implementation / Construction of preferred alternatives • Monitor resulting conditions – successes, failures, adaptation

18

19

Thank you for participating in this study. Your input is important. Please submit your completed Comment Sheet to staff at the Registration Table. Alternatively, your comments can be submitted by Fax, Email, or Mail, using the contact information below, by June 30, 2014. Pre-addressed envelopes are available upon request.

Contact: Patricia Newland, Environmental Engineering Projects - Restoration Services Division

Address: Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, 1 Eastville Avenue, Toronto, ON, M1M 2N5

Phone: 416-392-9690 Fax: 416-392-9726 Email: pnewland@trca.on.ca

For more information about this project and to access the workshop materials, please visit the study website at http://www.trca.on.ca/wilketcreek/